10-02-2003 18:03									#31
	Put an end to popups!

Good point

Aidun

	10-02-2003 20:34									#32
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think there should be some general guidelines amended in the Constitution. Certain 'demogame-requirements' for the ministers to follow... (not in-game requirements)

Would be easier for them to act accordingly then.
As I told you in the discussion thread. And a no-confidence vote would occur more legally if they do not follow up the peoples voice. So I really dunno if I'm gonna vote yet.

A good Constitution should be as consise as this is,
but have general guidlines regarding democratic principles, I think. :
(That said, don't be confused about the flag I'm flying...
Its only there to provoke Americans)



Otherwise, the Constitution looks nice and simple.

	10-02-2003 21:25									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I say no to any "law" that disturbs innecesarily the officials work. We don't need laws to tell if the consuls are following or not our will. If we feel like it is not happening then we vote against them. No bureaucracy needed.

It's not that I'm against any law, but I am against any law that disturbs the officials work without adding any value.

Consuls will need to listen to the people if they want to stay in charge or they will be removed. That's all we need. For the moment...

	10-02-2003 22:16									#34
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by oliverfa I say no to any "law" that disturbs innecesarily the officials work. We don't need laws to tell if the consuls are following or not our will. If we feel like it is not happening then we vote against them. No bureaucracy needed. It's not that I'm against any law, but I am against any law that disturbs the officials work without adding any value. Consuls will need to listen to the people if they want to stay in charge or they will be removed. That's all we need. For the moment...

That's what it's just all about and what I'm trying to make clear.

If we want to remove consuls, it needs to be done properly and in a fair and democratic way.

If we can change the rule now, that would be great, otherwise I keep fighting for it in amendments.

The current rule is too difficult, unworkable, takes too much time, is unfair and undemocratic!

Aidun

	10-02-2003 22:30									#35
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by oliverfa Consuls will need to listen to the people if they want to stay in charge or they will be removed. That's all we need. For the moment...

Exactly, they will be removed by no-con votes if not.
Thats why democratic "guidelines" should be covered in the Constitution to provide them with enough democratic insight to act as so they are not causing their own removal.
I know someone might need that one day.

	10-02-2003 22:43									#36
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Aidun If we want to remove consuls, it needs to be done properly and in a fair and democratic way. If we can change the rule now, that would be great, otherwise I keep fighting for it in amendments. The current rule is too difficult, unworkable, takes too much time, is unfair and undemocratic!

For me it's quite easy and quickly. If I don't like how the consul is doing I call a no-con poll explaining my reasons and proposing myself (or any other) to substitute him. Of course if I propose other person he must agree. After the poll is finished if I win he is removed. Otherwise he can stay. Simnple and effective.

Which other system would you propose?

	10-02-2003 22:45									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by ThePlagueRat Exactly, they will be removed by no-con votes if not. Thats why democratic "guidelines" should be covered in the Constitution to provide them with enough democratic insight to act as so they are not causing their own removal. I know someone might need that one day.

But in that case, they should defend themselves explaining why they did these or that, no by saying "oh I did that because it's the law!".

	11-02-2003 00:35									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by oliverfa For me it's quite easy and quickly. If I don't like how the consul is doing I call a no-con poll explaining my reasons and proposing myself (or any other) to substitute him. Of course if I propose other person he must agree. After the poll is finished if I win he is removed. Otherwise he can stay. Simnple and effective. Which other system would you propose?

We are understanding each other differently. What I am talking about is a rule in the current Constitution. It obligates any senator who want's to do a NoCon vote for any person in office to spresent someone who can replace the removed person.

This system is, for the reasons I have summed up in one of my previous posts undemocratic, unfair and unworkable.

A short summary:
- How should the senator get someone to replace? Three options:
1. He PM's one of his friends: Undemocratic and unfair.
2. He creates a threadfor it, which is quite embarrassing: Unworkable.
3. A voting with several candidates for replacement of the old person in office: Too difficult, but democratic .

I fully agree with you that just a normal yes-no-abstain-voting is no problem. That's the first part of the rule. It is the second part of the rule that I don't agree with:

quote: 3. The Senate has the power to take a vote of No-Confidence. a. Any Senator may propose a NoCon vote. b. The Senator must state the person he is intending to remove from office, and the person he intends to replace him with, in the first post.

Aidun

	11-02-2003 00:53									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Aidun We are understanding each other differently.

Ok, let's see if we can understand each other

I think that I understand what you mean with "undemocratic". Maybe your concern is that the no-con vote is just between two candidates, the challenged and the challenger?

It could be solved making the following rule: The no-con votes must have a minimum of one candidate, but they can have more than one. Let's say that the challenger presents the no-con vote and his candidate (which you seem to forget that can be himself). Then for a period of maybe 24-48 hours aditional candidates can present themselves. After that time the poll is held between the challenged, the challenger and anyone else who has presented his candidature.

	11-02-2003 01:04									#40
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

You are hitting the right nail on the head. It is just what I meant. Your idea is the compromise between a total open election (my idea) and the current quick procedure. The idea seems good to me.

Shall we present this as the first amendment when the consitution is affimed? I see no other legal option to change the constitution. People have already voted for it. The other option is to post a whole new poll with a renewed constitution.

Aidun

	11-02-2003 01:10									#41
	Tired of ads?

I'm with you in this amendment Aidun! Glad we finally reach a compromise to make things better in interest of all the team

	11-02-2003 01:20									#42
	Suffering from ads?

Btw, if you think that a law will restrict the Consuls ability to play the game there is a simple solution: vote against it. I'm sure there are enough of you absolutists out there that any such law would not pass.

	11-02-2003 01:26									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Aidun A short summary: - How should the senator get someone to replace? Three options: 1. He PM's one of his friends: Undemocratic and unfair. 2. He creates a threadfor it, which is quite embarrassing: Unworkable. 3. A voting with several candidates for replacement of the old person in office: Too difficult, but democratic.

How you find the replacement is not really relevant - that is not what democracy is about. The fact that your replacement has to be accepted and approved by the team in the no-con vote, that is where democracy steps in. Besides, you omitted a very important possibility:

4. proposing himself as the replacement

That's, I believe, what the clause was aimed at. If I think someone is doing his job poorly and I believe I would do it better, I shall step forward and say it, letting the team decide. I can, of course, propose someone else than me for the office, on condition I can get him to agree to that (it does not matter if it's my uncle, boss, best friend, or most hated enemy - he would still have to get the votes of the most team members, which renders any possible ties between me and him irrelevant). But if I am not willing to take over myself or have no idea whom to replace the poorly performing person with, then I better shut up, since there is nothing I can help with.

This is not like in the real world, where it is ok to say "the Prime Minister is a real jerk, let's oust him and have someone else instead". In the real world, there is (almost) always competent people enough to choose a replacement from. But we are not that many here and those that can commit to a time consuming job with the team executive are even fewer. Unless there is a better option available, the status quo, however subpar it may be, is still better than nothing.

Actually, proposing a replacement changes the no-con vote into elections. The question asked is: do you prefer the current person or would you rather like to have him or her replaced with this new face? Whatever the final result, the office will not be left vacant and whoever remains/gets in charge will have full power and responsibility.

That is, IMHO, a very good thing. I support that 100%.

EDIT: cross-posted, part of my post rendered void. But I am too lazy to edit it, so bear with me, please.

	11-02-2003 02:15									#44
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Thud I'm sure there are enough of you absolutists out there that any such law would not pass.

	11-02-2003 02:55									#45
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by vondrack How you find the replacement is not really relevant - that is not what democracy is about. The fact that your replacement has to be accepted and approved by the team in the no-con vote, that is where democracy steps in. Besides, you omitted a very important possibility:

It IS relevant and HAS nomething to do with democracy:
Everybody should get the chance of entering an election for some office. If I ask you to be candidate for the office to replace another one who is forced to remove, no others have the chance to run for it too, as I have decided that YOU will go. This is less democratic than providing the others the chance to compete with you.

quote: ] Originally posted by vondrack 4. proposing himself as the replacement That's, I believe, what the clause was aimed at. If I think someone is doing his job poorly and I believe I would do it better, I shall step forward and say it, letting the team decide. I can, of course, propose someone else than me for the office, on condition I can get him to agree to that (it does not matter if it's my uncle, boss, best friend, or most hated enemy - he would still have to get the votes of the most team members, which renders any possible ties between me and him irrelevant). But if I am not willing to take over myself or have no idea whom to replace the poorly performing person with, then I better shut up, since there is nothing I can help with.

If you think that someone is MALFUNCTIONING in office, that's what it's all about. Everybody thinks he could have done it better, that's normal and you are right if you say to those persons: "do it yourself and meet the challenge instead of having such comments".
However, if you think someone is malfunctioning, and he has to be replaced, but you don't have the experience to do it yourself, it is STILL IMPORTANT to adress this idea.
Of course the NoCon motion is not the first way to solve the problem, it's the heaviest weapon there is. It's better to discuss the problem first. If there remains no other option, you can always use the NoCon motion.
To make it easy for everybody to use this vote if it is NEEDED to use it, Oliverfa and I have designed the proposal. Even the least experienced player should be able to use it.

quote: ] Originally posted by vondrack This is not like in the real world, where it is ok to say "the Prime Minister is a real jerk, let's oust him and have someone else instead". In the real world, there is (almost) always competent people enough to choose a replacement from. But we are not that many here and those that can commit to a time consuming job with the team executive are even fewer. Unless there is a better option available, the status quo, however subpar it may be, is still better than nothing.

It is surely not like the real world, but according to my experience in the SPDG there are always enough people willing to go into office. Except for Domestic Minister, but even that job was always fulfilled.
I see no problem arising here.

quote: ] Originally posted by vondrack Actually, proposing a replacement changes the no-con vote into elections. The question asked is: do you prefer the current person or would you rather like to have him or her replaced with this new face? Whatever the final result, the office will not be left vacant and whoever remains/gets in charge will have full power and responsibility. That is, IMHO, a very good thing. I support that 100%.

Consider the proposal as a kind of quick elections yes, that's the most democratic way to replace a governor.
The accusing senator creates a thread, eventually proposes a candidate, which can be himself and allows other candidates to enter the quick-election for between 24 and 48 hours. I myself think we can best leave the poll open for 36 hours, so everybody has had the chance to enter the quick-election. After this period the accuser can post two polls, one NoCon motion, for replacement of the particular person in office. Another in which the senate is able to choose between the candidates. If no candidate was proposed by the accusing senator and no other candidates have joined the election, so there is no one to replace the accused person in office, the NoCon is being defeated before it was posted and the current person in office remains in office.

I hope I've made it clear enough to you.

Aidun

	11-02-2003 05:29									#46
	Tired of ads?

Here, I know it is cosmetic, but a rename of the No-Con seems to be something that would pacify alot of people. I say we call it:

A Change of Command.

If the compromize of letting other people put their name on the prospective Command Change goes through, then what we have put together is a system where regular elections are held whenever someone feels like. This is even more riduclious than holding regular elections.

We have already agreed that a completely democratic system would not be best suited for a PBEM game. Why bring the subject up again?

	11-02-2003 05:38									#47
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I would prefer to call it a "Coup", but I don't mind if we choose a different name at all.

	11-02-2003 06:12									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

If you call the current completely democratic, you are mistaken. It is a very good constitution. I have voted in favor of it, but I have seen something that could be improved to my opinion and I appriciate yours upon the subject.
Don't see this as an insult, I'm wanting to make things easier.

Aidun

	11-02-2003 06:57									#49
	Put an end to popups!

Aidun, I can now see your point clearly. While I was defending the idea of having to name at least one replacement, I did not realize there was nothing said about if there was more than one person wishing to run for the post possibly becoming vacant.

Perhaps the best formulation is to say that to call a no-con vote, the accuser should be obliged to name at least one replacement and should be obliged to allow anybody to run for the post possibly becoming vacant. Like starting a non-con process, enlisting challengers for a set minimum period of time first, calling the actual non-con vote only then.

Sorry for misunderstanding.

	11-02-2003 18:57									#50
	Suffering from ads?

No sorry needed. Its good to make things about such an important issue like this.

reading your last post, I conclude that you have agreed mostly with the proposal of Oliverfa and me: allowing other persons to run for the post.

I admit the importance of having a candidate to replace the old person, but still I'd rather see this obligation removed too, to make it easier for less experienced senators or senators who just don't want to run for the post. When no candidates are willing to run, the NoCon motion is automatically defeated and the accused person in office remains in office.

Aidun

	11-02-2003 21:14									#51
	Got spare money?

This all boils down to:

G. 3. The Senate has the power to take a proposal for Change of Command.

a. Any Senator may proclaim a Change of Command proposal.
b. The Senator must state one Consul, Minister or official appointed by the Consulate he is intending to remove from office in the first post - this is called the 'initial proposal'.
c. During 36 hours after the initial proposal, any number of candidates may apply for the job. The Senator may or may not apply himself.
d. After the first 36 hours have passed, the Senator must organize a vote - this is called the 'replacement proposal'.
e The replacement proposal vote must be open for at least 36 hours.
f. The replacement proposal vote must include all candidates, plus the person who was the subject of the initial proposal, unless this person indicates otherwise.
g. If any candidate gets more votes than any other candidate and more than the subject person, he will get the vacancy. If the subject person gets more votes than any candidate, he will stay in the job. If there is a tie between any number of persons, the Consulate chooses between the persons who received the most votes.
h. A Consul, Minister or official appointed by the Consulate may propose a Change of Command vote on himself.


Why do we use 'yea' and 'nay' instead of 'yes' and 'no'?

	11-02-2003 22:04									#52
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Perfect.

	12-02-2003 00:10									#53
	Remove this text

I like this structure and this document.

	12-02-2003 00:23									#54
	Put an end to popups!

Please. Stop what you're doing and back away slowly from the nomination periods and and initial proposals and replacement proposals and all the bureaucracy. Let's get down to reality:

There is no time for us to sit around and chitchat and speculate and HOPE that some really nice guy or three are going to duke it out for the Consul position slot we want to fill ... and need to get filled before the save comes back again.

What will happen is this: Someone will say to himself "Joe the Consul sucks. His reports are aweful. I could do a better job than him!" And that peson will post a No-Con vote to get Joe replaced with him. We vote.

Or, someone think that Sam is far wiser than Joe the Consul, so he PMs Sam and asks him "Hey, if I did a No-Con and submited you against Joe, would you accept the job?" If Sam writes back "Sure" then the No-Con is posted. We vote.

Anyone can become a candidate if he wants. You can propose other people to be a candidate (just check with them first). There's no lack of access and no need for runoffs and debates and so forth. Let's keep it utterly simple, plain, and efficient.

--Togas

	12-02-2003 00:38									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

• There is no more bureaucracy than needed.
  
• We don't need to sit down and chitchat. The government will just keep on doing its job. There are 3 Consuls, after all, while on only 1 person a Change of Command (CoC) vote has been cast.
  
• The problem with replacing person X for person Y, as you propose, is the following:
  
  Someone will say: Joe the Consul sucks.
  Someone else will say: I want Joe's job.
  
  The first person casts a CoC vote on Joe, asking the people to replace him. When this is accepted - what does the second person do? Cast a vote on the first person, or sit and wait?
  
  I'm just afraid that too many CoC votes will be cast.
  
  When candidates have the opportunity to present themselves, the people can fairly choose a person from them. The others will wait, as in the first situation, but at least they know that they had a chance at applying for the job.
  
  
• The need for runoffs is only there if an equal number of votes has been cast. You need =some= rule to solve this.

	12-02-2003 01:06									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I do agree with most of your points, Togas...

I think, however, there is need for debates and that the candidates should (or must) participate in an electional debate to let voters know what policy they vote for, but I agree we don't need runoff polls, etc.

Ok, let's take a look at the current law.....
Do you guys think Sam the Consul should be allowed to initiate a no-con poll on Jeff the Consul ? (while he is PM-ing Joe the Consul about how Jeff the Consul opposes his scheme and asks for support to remove Jeff )
Well, I think Councils should stay away from a no-con poll initiation. And it should be included in the law. Btw: Councils might vote of course, even vote against removing one self.)

	12-02-2003 01:12									#57
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Consuls should only be replaced due to the need for new leadership, not for a new leader.

	12-02-2003 01:17									#58
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Very simple proposal to keep too many No-Con votes from being called:

A Consul who has won a No-Con vote cannot be challanged again in a new No-Con vote for another 14 days (or other period).

Also, people will talk amongst themselves. Parties will form. Hopefully no one is foolish enough to just No-Con someone without a reasonable hope of winning (because, by doing so, that Consul is immune from recall for 2 weeks). Individuals can work things out outside an organized system. We don't have to codify everything.

--Togas

	12-02-2003 01:42									#59
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Not much time todya, so I will try to reply everyone shortly.

- I'm against all the unneeded bureaucracy. Specially if that prevents the consuls/ officials from doing their job.

- The proposition to open the no-con vote to more than one candidate would be to let it as it is now, but just allow any other candidates to add their candidature to the election when a no-con vote is called. Just change the 1 vs 1 to a minimum of 2 candidates (challenged plus challenged) and no maximum.

- Completely agree with the 14 days immunity after no-con vote. That would prevent some people from just calling nonsense votes.

- And I also would limit the duration of the whole process as much as posible. Is 36 hours for the candidatures and 36 more hours for the vote (considering that the candidates can use the first 36 hours to try to convince people) enough?

	12-02-2003 02:34									#60
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Togas Very simple proposal to keep too many No-Con votes from being called: A Consul who has won a No-Con vote cannot be challanged again in a new No-Con vote for another 14 days (or other period).

Too long in my opinion. A single week would probably suffice. This is a power that will likely be used very rarely if the RP Team is any indication I'd rather let people use it whenever they REALLY need to (even if that's twice in a week and a half period), even if they never use it again for several months.

quote: Also, people will talk amongst themselves. Parties will form. Hopefully no one is foolish enough to just No-Con someone without a reasonable hope of winning (because, by doing so, that Consul is immune from recall for 2 weeks). Individuals can work things out outside an organized system. We don't have to codify everything.

I agree with the general sentiment here. Chances are that any no-con vote will be organized before it is actually proposed. I have no worries there at all...